DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 11-13 and 15-20 remain pending in the application. The previous objection to claim 15 is withdrawn in light of the Applicant's amendment to claim 15.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a compression mechanism in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2019/0264689 to Park in view of U. S. Patent 10,240,635 to Wendt.
Referring to claim 11, Park teaches a refrigerant compressor, comprising:
a compressor housing (121, 140) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0058] and [0060]); and
a drive shaft (135) for driving a compression mechanism (150), which is arranged within the compressor housing (4), a main bearing (161) via which the drive shaft (135) is supported on the compressor housing (4) and which comprises an inner ring fixed to the drive shaft (135) and an outer ring pressed into the compressor housing (4) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0058], [0060] and [0085]-[0087]).
Park does not teach protrusions on the outer ring. Wendt teaches a similar bearing wherein:
protruding tooth-like protrusions (32) which press into an adjacent wall of a housing (10) are arranged on an end face of an outer ring (6) in a direction of a ring axis of the outer ring (6), and the tooth-like protrusions (32) respectively extend individually in a radial direction over a width of the end face (Figures 1 and 3, Fig. 1 annotated below; col. 6 lines 10-25).
[AltContent: textbox (End Face)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
378
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Wendt Figure 1.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the compressor taught by Park with the bearing protrusions taught by Wendt in order to prevent rotation of the outer ring relative to the housing (col. 6 lines 10-25).
Wendt does not teach the tooth-like protrusions over a complete width of the end face. However, the Applicant has not provided any reason why extending the tooth-like protrusions over a complete width of the end face is critical to the claimed invention, and therefore it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the tooth-like protrusions extend over a complete width of the end face, as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different sized protrusions solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different sized protrusions.
Referring to claim 13, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, and Park further teaches a refrigerant compressor wherein:
there is a form-fit connection between the main bearing (161) and the compressor housing (4) (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0058], [0060] and [0085]-[0087]).
Referring to claim 15, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, but Park does not teach protrusions on the outer ring. Wendt further teaches a similar bearing wherein:
the tooth-like protrusions (32) are uniformly distributed in a circumferential direction over a complete circumference of the outer ring (32) (Figures 1 and 3; col. 6 lines 10-25).
Referring to claim 16, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, and Park further teaches a refrigerant compressor wherein:
the outer ring is manufactured in one piece (outer ring is a single piece and the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight).
Referring to claim 19, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, and Park further teaches a refrigerant compressor wherein:
the refrigerant compressor is a scroll compressor (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0058], [0060] and [0085]-[0087]).
Referring to claim 20, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, and Park further teaches a refrigerant compressor wherein:
the main bearing (161) is a ball bearing (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0058], [0060] and [0085]-[0087]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2019/0264689 to Park in view of U. S. Patent 10,240,635 to Wendt and U. S. Patent Publication 2010/0233395 Ishida.
Referring to claim 12, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, but Park does not teach protrusions on the outer ring and Ishida teaches protrusions on the outer ring but is silent as to how the housing reacts to the insertion of the outer ring therein. Ishida teaches a similar bearing wherein:
a material of a housing (8) is plastically deformed by insertion of an outer ring (14a) (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0062] and [0063]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the compressor taught by Park with the deformation taught by Ishida in order to secure the outer ring without causing a change in shape of the outer ring and bearing race therein (Ishida paragraph [0063]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2019/0264689 to Park in view of U. S. Patent 10,240,635 to Wendt and U. S. Patent 4,990,000 to Harsdorff.
Referring to claim 17, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above, including wherein the outer ring is manufactured in one piece, but are silent as to how the outer rings are made. Harsdorff teaches a similar bearing wherein:
an outer ring is manufactured in one piece in a forging process (col. 2 lines 49-50 and claim 10).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to make the compressor taught by Park with the forging taught by Harsdorff in order to use a process for forming the outer ring which results in sufficient strength to perform the intended function of the outer ring.
Referring to claim 18, Park and Wendt teach a compressor having all the limitations of claim 17, as detailed above, including wherein Wendt teaches the outer ring having the claimed tooth-like protrusions created together with the outer ring, but are silent as to how the outer rings are made. Harsdorff teaches a similar bearing wherein:
an outer ring is manufactured in one piece in a forging process (col. 2 lines 49-50 and claim 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “the tines or serrations (32) of Wendt are formed on an edge surface or corner (20, 38) of the ring rather than the end surface (18).” Remarks 2. However, this “edge surface or corner” is part of an end of the outer ring which faces away from the outer ring, and is therefore an end face as claimed.
The Applicant argues that “Wendt is difficult to manufacture and excessively deformed compared to the present invention.” Remarks 2-3. However, the Applicant has provided no evidence for this conclusion. Further, there is no reason to assume that the alleged difficulty in manufacturing and excessive deformation would not be outweighed by the benefits otherwise provided by the Wendt design. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Wendt “tines or serrations (32) do not extend over a complete width of the end face.” Remarks 3. However, as detailed above, this limitation was rejected as an obvious matter of design choice, not by citation to Wendt or any other cited art.
The Applicant argues that col. 5 lines 29-49 of Wendt teaches against Wendt’s own disclosed tooth like protrusions 32. Remarks 3. However, even if Wendt were to teach such a disadvantage of the disclosed protrusions 32 in this passage, which the Examiner does not concede, Wendt clearly teaches that this alleged disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages provided thereby. Throughout the disclosure, Wendt teaches wherein the protrusions 32 as an integral component of the Wendt invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746